#Recruitment #QualityofHire #MeasuringSuccess
Hey fellow recruiters! 👋 Let’s talk about quality of hire – the holy grail of recruiting metrics. 🌟 According to the Linkedin Recruiting Report 2024, it’s the top priority for recruiters this year. But the big question is, how do you measure it? 🤔
Here are some possible solutions that might help you in formulating a formula for Quality of Hire:
– Assessing candidate performance after 6 months on the job
– Gathering feedback from hiring managers and team members
– Tracking retention rates and employee satisfaction scores
So, what’s your approach? Share your thoughts and let’s crack the code on measuring Quality of Hire together! 💡 #RecruitmentStrategies #TalentAcquisition #HRInsights
First thing I check for is constant growth (promotions, responsibilities etc).
If you know the market we’ll enough and remember names we’ll I look at the references on CVs, good people refer good people.
Finally, a CV that is not stock standard responsibilities with no expansion on projects or comprehension shown in what they did in roles is always a good indicator.
It’s not standardized because it requires the hiring managers, and they’re notoriously unaccountable for pretty much everything in hiring. When I’ve implemented it, it’s been a simple 30/60/90 day binary yes or no, were they a good hire? I would prefer a more in depth review by the managers but getting that is like pulling teeth from a pissed off rhino. Follow up at 30 days, 60 days, and 90, and get the HM to sign off one way or another. The crap part is when they won’t sign off on the person as a good hire, they also won’t often want to fire and replace the person, so implementing the program also usually backs you into a corner where you know person X isn’t working out but you’ve got to wait and wait and wait for the HM to initiate any action, at which point the higher ups usually ask you why nothing was done if the HM knew the person wasn’t working out.
It’s also pointless to implement without some kind of RCA process to try and figure out what went wrong, so as not to repeat the same mistake.
The good ol quality of hire and who is actually responsible for it debate.
First off, and this is just my opinion, but the LinkedIn Recruiting Report is a lot of fluff written by executives who love buzzwords so take it with a grain of salt. Those reports are also basically a sales tool for LI so I roll my eyes at them for the most part.
Quality of hire isn’t actually a topic that TA teams should be measured on as hiring decisions are up to the hiring manager and their specific teams in most industries. Even when you look at the topics brought up in that report, all of the aspects brought up in that specific area would be a measurement of the hiring manager, not someone in TA.
The biggest way quality of hire can be tracked to a TA individual is via looking at if the background of the new hire tracks to the job description. In cases where it doesn’t track, TA individuals need to cover their own asses and hopefully they’ve called out to the hiring manager they’re working with as to how that hire doesn’t track, so it falls on the appropriate person in the worst case scenario.
Quality of hire should actually be tracked by HRBPs to track performance of hiring managers, onboarding programs, and continuous trainings of new employees.
Added context: this topic took up approximately 6 pages of my MS thesis and I spoke with TA and HR leaders I know from Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and two unicorn valuation private companies. We all had some strong laughs at how shit like this rolls down hill to TA teams mainly because far too many hiring managers don’t want to take full responsibility for what it takes to hire, train, and retain talent.